Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Oh fudge, now Mikhail Pletnev in trouble too

What's the date of Horowitz's joke? Is it possible it had something to do with the war? (A bit of a jab to the Nazi's, who believed in purging the arts of impurity along with the population?)

Regardless, Jews have made an enormous contribution to musical culture, and not just classical. 50% of academy awards for best original song from a group who comprises about 2% of the population?

http://www.jinfo.org/Pianists.html

http://www.jinfo.org/Music.html

Aside from the fact that an argument from tradition is fallacious (why not use this argument in favor of slavery in 1850?), it's false that homosexuality has been consistently rejected in history.



The burden of proof is on the person who wants to reject homosexuality. If we have no data either way, the burden of proof is on the one who makes an affirmative claim -- and that's you in this case.

I guess you've cited some evidence about STDs and so on. There might be some truth to that (I really don't know enough to say for sure), but remember that we generally allow people to live their lives recklessly, if they like, in other ways (legal drugs, risky extreme sports etc.). And, more importantly, any evidence about STDs is evidence against promiscuity and not homosexuality proper. It might justify a public awareness campaign in gay bars or in school.

That remark by Horowitz can be traced back to the late-1940s - a time when he was separated from Wanda and spending a lot of time in California (where he was a regular at George Cukor's parties).



But even when he was back together with Wanda, he would pipe up with remarks such as "The homosexuals will save the world" (in response to a rant from Wanda about the Catholic Church's position on birth control).

Oh, that is only because I have not gotten a cracked at this subject!!

All kidding aside, it looks like I missed an entertaining discussion going on. To bad I was practicing when it was going on.

I myself sadly feel a bit ashamed, I was more entertained with what was being said back and forth. As for pletnev, he probably will not have to deal with the charges and such. I will be honest I never listened to him that much, so did not have much of an opinion on him as a pianist. It is kind of difficult now to listen to him knowing anything I think will be a bit tainted.

What you do with your dog is up to you. But stay away from mine.

Let's face it: playing the piano well requires a certain sensitivity of soul, which in males is usually supressed by a culture that sees this as "sissy" (this is changing) with the result that nominally heterosexual boys are dissuaded from music and the "arts" in general. So of course the pool of male musicians is skewed "gayward."

Incidentally, the last fistfight I got into (30 years ago) was at a party where a drunk jock-type loudly questioned my sexuality while I was discussing classical music with some girls. He lost.

Sorry, but I need a a Rick Santorum moment......

Hank What a great picture of your dog!!!! Finally this thread has regained something worthwhile to discuss........................I would have locked this thread a long time ago when the discussion became distasteful to say the least. Let the trolls return to their rocks.

To me, it's especially funny in that ad how borderline-vulgar the choice of language is - using 'on' for example between "man on dog".

I think the mindset comes from just not having a category in one's mind for a grown-up homosexual relationship. Homosexuality is 'man on man' or nothing at all, in that mind.

Hey, you sure that's legal?

What I find surprising is that this thread began with comments speculating on what Pletnev may or may not have done, then descending into arguments about homosexuality and paedophilia, before FunkyLlama stated in reference to the allegations that Pletnev has engaged in paedophilia that "no-one is for a minute trying to justify what he did"; and "has anyone else found that listening to Pletnev's recordings is now an unpleasant experience...".

Pletnev has not been convicted of any offence. He is (in Thailand, like many places in the world) innocent until proven guilty. One can cite unsubstantiated rumours about what he gets up to in Moscow, or speculate why he owns a property in Thailand, but unless and until he admits to wrongful behaviour or is convicted of such, it is totally inappopriate to be asserting as fact that he is guilty of paedophilia. The limited reported evidence giving rise to the charge hardly constitutes evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly if you are in any way familiar with the political, social and cultural dynamics of Asia; it is certainly not unknown in some countries in this part of the world for people to be charged for reasons not linked to someone's innocence or guilt.

Pletnev could have done something wrong; but it is also possible that he did not. Who is anyone on this forum to form an assessment based on the limited reported information? If vindicated, I can only hope that FunkyLlama's experience of listening to Pletnev recordings improves as quickly as it deteriorated; but one thing's for sure, I would never want him/her on a jury charged with establishing my innocence or guilt!

I think that's really unfair to FunkyLlama. It's not wrong to form our opinions of people based on less evidence than that required to convict someone in court. And there's no reason to think FunkyLllama wouldn't have as high standards as anyone else if placed on a jury.

Actually, the requirements are explicit, at least in the US for criminal cases it is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is much stronger than 'more likely than not', which is a reasonable standard for changing your opinion of someone, and in Pletnev's case, from what we've heard, not inapplicable.

On both intellectual and emotional levels, I don't quite see how an artist's private-life-made-public influences my opinion of his recordings. Why, because of his alleged activities - as yet not fully substantiated - should the recording I admired last week now be abhorrent or unlistenable to me? It's still the same recording, and I still like it for the same reasons I liked it last week.

Regards,

I would say that on some emotional levels, you're right. But there is definitely an emotional level on which one's appreciation of good music translates to respect for the person creating it, and then that appreciation flows back into the appreciation of the music - and things have changed on that level.

I don't think the music continues to inspire respect in a person the way it used to, in cases where it becomes clear that the artist is seriously morally flawed.

I still respect certain regions of their brains, if that's possible. It doesn't feel like respect anymore, though. Since the object of respect is just a clump of neurons, the emotional attitude directed at it is more like appreciation. It's similar to the appreciation of a spectacular mountain range created by nature, or an unusual animal like a camouflaged insect that is amazing for some reason. It's wonder, but not respect. And since wonder is more sterile than respect, it feeds back into the appreciation of the music in a different way - it's less intimate, for one thing.

Most football fans can't much enjoy old clips of OJ Simpson doing his great runs.

And even if Hitler's art were great, we would hardly be able to embrace it for that.

You don't have to tell me that there are huge differences between anything Pletnev might have done and what OJ or Hitler did, but......it's the same basic principle: Our appreciation of someone's craft can be influenced by other things about them.

Wha?? No one, not even his mum, would have called his art great. Now, Churchill...

Or as Mel Brookes out it "Churchill! With his cigars, with his brandy, and his rotten painting! Rotten! Hitler, there was a painter. He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon--two coats!"

Did you not recognize the usage of the subjunctive?

Must be the way you tell 'em.

What's unclear about "if.....were"?

Sounds like you mistook "were" for "is."

Big difference.

You mean as in if pigs were flying we could form some sort of conclusion?